by ithinkisee 28 Replies latest watchtower bible
That is it! You guys rock!
Thanks! Thanks! Thanks!
My wife will crap when she reads this .. because her words were, "Until I see an actual copy of the page, I cannot accept it. BUT, if they did really misquote like this, I would find it VERY disturbing!"
Sweet!
-ithinkisee
The position taken by WT where the Imp Dict is cited, is that the original meaning was upright stake or pole. Imp Bible Dict does agree with that. Does it support the overall WT position? No, but it does support the specific point for which it is used.
Also you could mention that in the Old Jewish language there was no word for cross it was not in their vocabulary when the older books in the bible fortell the death of Jesus. For Ex: A person using another language might not be able to say the words for Truck, pickup, or suv. so in their language they can only say automobile meaning a four wheel transpotation device. So when they go back home they tell people "Man there is alot of automobiles in New York City" But I can say in my language there were alot of cars and trucks in New York. The same was true for the Jews in their Hebrew Language they did not have a word for CROSS they used the word (strauros) which cover all the devises used to torture or hang a person. Like the person mentioned when he said there was alot of automobiles in New York he could not narrow it in his language and say cars or truck neither could the Jew that spoke Hebrew. So untill the Jews started to speek a little Greek in their day to day life they used the word (struaros) but after they started to adopt some Greek into their language they could used the word CROSS but before that time no matter what the ORIGINAL meaning for the word (strauros) meant they used it to describe all devices used for torture. It is no more complicated than this. The Society is make a mountain out of an mole hill.
Yes, agreed that the original meaning is of little importance, which makes this an extremely questionable line of reasoning. However, it does not prove deception with respect to the citation under discussion.
Kwin
ithinkisee,
If you need more scans, let me know. I'm off to the city at 2pm and can do it for you.
steve
This is a good example of selective quoting. The Society quotes only one portion of the statement, that the cross originally meant a simple stake, but omitted the main point ... that it was on a two-timbered cross that Jesus was executed on. There is another instance of this selective quoting in the case of Liddell & Scott. The fact that stauros and crux originally referred to a "stake" means about as much as the fact that the English word "car" originally meant "chariot" and "horse-drawn carriage". If we read a newspaper article about the new 2006 Lexis cars, would we be justified in assuming from the original sense of the word that these are chariots or horse-drawn carriages? That is essentially what the Society is doing in this case.
My thread on this is the most complete and exhaustive treatment of the subject on the internet:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/92381/1.ashx
ithinkisee.... I have many, many scans from the original publications that your wife may find interesting, including original Greek and Latin texts (with English translations) that prove that stauros and crux did mean "cross"....even the very same sources and authors the Society quotes for a meaning "stake" are obviously referring to a cross with a patibulum. I will post these in this thread later this afternoon, as I am crunching with a deadline right now....
That would be awesome Leolia. If you need them hosted somewhere I have my own webserver and can make it happen.
-ithinkisee
Yes, agreed that the original meaning is of little importance, which makes this an extremely questionable line of reasoning. However, it does not prove deception with respect to the citation under discussion.
In and of itself - no. But in the CONTEXT of the entire argument brought out in the Reasoning book it is very deceptive. They give the impression in unequivocal terms - especially in the Reasoning book - that Jesus DID NOT die on a cross. When a publication uses a source to prove a point the source didn't mean - it is deceptive. -ithinkisee
Oh my God!! It's like the Apostate Bat Signal was turned on and everyone jumped in to help. I mean how great that we can locate and scan and put up a fairly obscure publication so quickly. I'm impressed.
Leolai, I would take any information you have on cross as well. I will pm you an email address.
IthinIsee, your story still inspires me to try harder and more effective means in my quest.
